Health care system give too much power to the Doctors, and they get their hands into everything. They figure because they went to medical school they seem to be an expert on all thing. But because they are in such a position of power other non-clinical departments need to kiss up to them. We can get a 5 minute pitch to say why we may think it may be a bad idea (usually out of the blue as it becomes a surprise change) but if it technically can be done it will end up having to be implemented. And they want it now with no patients for testing, and way too cheap to setup a good testing environment.
Then we have issues because we were forced to implement a bad design, then it is a case those IT guys screwed up again! Even the fact it mostly worked is a near miracle that it even works.
We can have better and safer health care IT if the doctors shut up and take what we make for them. They can state there problems on the high level, but they will nitpick into a crap system.
Disrupt no, change yes and it always will. Globalization will also change it.
When they started to make drums they found a way to make music louder so it can be heard hundreds of meters away. So music changed.
Additional instruments created new sound so the singer wasn't always needed. Then we have forms where the singer emulates the sound of the instrument.
We get to the point were instruments can be fine tuned then music can be played as written allowing wider distribution of music.
Streaming will change music, being that the artist are not bound by media lengths. They can have a short 30 second song or a 3 hour long song.
Also the fact that music is now listen more privately over headphones, increases the music diversity, you don't need to feel guilty that after some heavy metal music you can switch to music theater without people looking at you funny.
on the issue of racism, no
i do not know many things about many topics. all of us are ignorant of many things
but i know enough about racism to understand that racists are not intelligent people. i am absolutely certain of that
oh i am certain you can find some mathematician who can do complex topological analysis in his head who is a fervent racist. there's also mathematicians who can't balance their checkbooks or know how to talk to girls. much like autism, extreme intelligence in a small domain does not often extend to basic social intelligence. on a site like slashdot, i am certain there are minds brilliant in small esoteric areas that are social morons, aspergers syndrome types
but anyone of average social development and of ordinary iq can easily spot the logical fallacies with racist "thinking"
and so you must be socially retarded to be a racist. i am certain of that to an absolute degree
there are certain beliefs, like creationism, antivaccine, racism, that to believe in those things *requires* you to be mentally deficient and socially stunted
if you are racist, you are a low intelligence individual. truth
we're dealing with racists here
to believe in racism is to be a stupid person because to believe in it requires falling for a logical fallacy
if you don't understand that you are indeed a stupid person. objectively true. to hold a belief that requires low iq is to be a stupid person. objectively determined truth of low intelligence
i don't really give a shit what you think of me. because i am 100% correct here. racists are stupid people. you have to be a genuinely dumb, low iq, moron to believe the borken "if... then..." bullshit reasoning behind racist beliefs
Government is rather good at infrastructure. Companies are not so good at it. Why do you think Cable Companies are so bad in terms of customer support. Because they need to manage this infrastructure. That means they will keep the more profitable zones in better condition, or zones where they have some competition with. But in other areas where it is a profit loss zone, or they know customers don't have an alternative, they will just do the bare minimum. Government infrastructure seems to value the last mile user a bit more. Making sure they get their coverage as well.
Pay may be part of it. However there are other motivations. The degree of artistic control, Sometime a fancier title means you get more say on your ideas. Creative types are known to take positions for less pay where they have more control of their work.
Inclusions at the C level meetings. Sure meeting are boring, and most of us really don't want to be there. But it is sometimes nicer to get the information before it becomes a surprise, and have the power to shoot down stupid ideas earlier.
Sure Apple is a huge player. But Google may want Ives, or Samsung, or Sony. Perhaps some little known startup company will get him.
My view is they should split up the infrastructure and the content providers.
Perhaps the municipal governments having control of the infrastructure, and we can have a choice of ISPs and other content providers.
"Publish or Perish", Degrees that require new original ideas, Strict hierarchy structure...
Academic institutions are culturally stuck in victorian times. So if you want to work up, get the choice projects and research, you need to publish. The more your publish, the higher the chances you will move up. Because there is so much published material, people don't read it much, so they found that they can get credit for half ass work.
Your name becomes your brand, so when you try to get a grant your name+institution you will work for will get you the grant money.
There isn't any reason why Say State University of New York Buffalo can't get a grant to study seismology, but chances are it will go to University of California Berkeley not because they will do a better job, but because of the name.
Finally institutions haven't learned how to deal with today's political climate with the attempt for breaking news. Every Hypothesis is sold to the public as a new Theory... Then if that Hypothesis is shown false (as it is common in science) then the media who may have a political slant will go and say see Science is Wrong again, just like our political stance has predicted!
Science for the most part is quite work, collaborating with like minded people, with checks and balances to try to filter out strong egos. But it has gone commercial so these checks and balances are weaken as strong egos will win out.
Now now, environmentalists only live where there is a temperate climate, thus have no need to consider the finer details of real world application. Those who have real world needs are just wrong or corrupt.
Scale: charging your phone with 5 volts compared to a car at 120/220 volts.
Safety: that much current floating around means if a child wanders in the wrong area they are fried
Efficiency: If it is half efficient to charge our phones. No big deal its conscience makes up for the cost. But to power a car you will feel the extra cost. Besides you get a electric car because it is better for the environment and if we need to create extra coal plants to power these cars its carbon footprint gets bigger.
Reliability: a car goes threw a lot of stressed. Rain, snow, ice, wind, salt, bugs, animals nesting in it.
It isn't the same as making a wireless charger to charge a 2 ton cell phone.
Argentina was a special case where an investor rolled the dice on buying up all their debt and then somehow taking them to court in the US and winning a judgement that crippled them financially. Previous to that, Argentina has had a long track record of failing to pay back their debt going back decades without repercussion. So do most other countries outside of western europe. Spain and Greece are two of the biggest examples of what happens when you join a currency union and your economy is not in sync with the strongest players.
Yeah I was going to say, I wrote a crude flight simulator, including the display drivers for my Arduino and SSD1306 OLED display, that weighs in at 31KB. A piece of code to focus a laser should be less than that.
There is a New York state law banning male daycare teachers from changing diapers.
There is a strong preference in custody cases that the child will end up with the mother, even if she isn't nearly as fit to parent.
There is actually more of a written inequality against men then woman.